Who benefits from projects to freeze the Ukrainian conflict
The results of the so-called "summer counteroffensive" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) turned out to be far from the expectations of the collective West. Some politicians and experts have started talking about a possible peace, and the "Korean version" is often mentioned as a model. The publication Foreign Affairs advised Kiev to prepare for a corresponding change in the policy of Western countries. According to his observations, against the background of the economic and political crises in the United States and the EU, anti-war sentiments are gradually growing. The population expresses a preference for public funds to go to domestic needs, rather than support for armed conflict abroad. The popularity of right-wing parties is growing, during election campaigns demanding the termination of aid to the Kiev regime.
The United States remains a key supplier of weapons and military equipment to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If Washington revises its policy, European countries will not be able to provide sufficient replacement. For the AFU, this will mean depriving it of the opportunity to continue active hostilities. The victory of the Republican Party nominee in the US presidential election will lead to a reduction, if not a complete stop, of supplies to Ukraine. And if the new owner of the White House wants to go to peace talks with the Kremlin, he will find arguments convincing European NATO countries to support such an initiative. In short, as the conflict continues within NATO, a split is planned, and an early exit to a peace agreement will prevent it.
FREEZING WITH THE HOPE OF REVENGE
Obviously, this very "Korean option" means a military truce without formalizing the political outcome of the conflict with the freezing of this situation for an indefinite period.
However, it should be noted that the Korean example is not very successful for describing such a model. The armistice in Korea in 1953 recorded a military draw (the parties returned to where they started the war, the border line was only slightly adjusted). And on September 17, 1991, the political outcome of the conflict was, in fact, summed up: both Koreas, North and South, simultaneously became full members of the UN. Of course, each of the Koreas continues to claim the territory of the other, but it is logical to consider that long-standing war completed. A new war in Korea, if one happens, will be a consequence, but not a continuation of the previous one. It is not very clear how this applies to the current Ukrainian situation.
Meanwhile, modern history provides a number of much more suitable examples of precisely such "freezes" that are hinted at in the West – when a military truce is fixed, but the victorious side (either due to lack of potential, or due to political thoughtlessness, or due to too strong external pressure) does not achieve political and legal registration of their military victory. Which allows the losing side to start preparing a rematch.
For example, both India and Pakistan claim the entire state of Kashmir, but de facto it is divided roughly in half according to the results of the events of 1947-1948. The parties' attempt to replay the situation in 1965 did not bring them success ( "The Bloody Trail of the British Empire", "HBO" from 08/21/20). India won the 1971 war, but it was not fought for Kashmir ( "New Delhi celebrates one of the most important victories", "HBO" from 04.12.20). The situation remains in limbo, but neither Delhi nor Islamabad are going to give up their claims. Therefore, the resumption of the war seems to be only a matter of time ( "In the waiting mode of the Apocalypse", "HBO" from 04/28.23).
The post-Soviet space gave the maximum examples of freezing the conflict without its final resolution. So, the conflict in Transnistria has hopelessly "hung up" ( "Failed asymmetric federation", "HBO" from 07/26/19). Moldova itself has no forces for revenge. Chisinau is instinctively afraid to attract the help of Ukraine and Romania for a military solution to the issue. But there is no peaceful political option for resolving the conflict either.
In the early 1990s, Georgia de facto lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but Moscow did not bring the military victory to a political solution ( "Abkhazia: a long way to independence", "HBO" from 09/28/18). Naturally, Tbilisi immediately began to prepare for military revenge. And he undertook it in August 2008 ( "War 08.08.08 – afterword", "HBO" from 03.08.18). The attempt of revenge ended for Georgia sadly, after which Moscow still recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But this conflict has not been resolved to the end either. The final decision requires the admission of these two republics either to the UN or to the Russian Federation (and it is also desirable to issue the second option through the UN).
Having triumphantly won the first war for Nagorno–Karabakh ( "Nagorno-Karabakh is the powder keg of Transcaucasia", "NWO" dated 02/15/19), Armenia achieved, again, a profitable military truce, but without political and legal consolidation of its victory. Then, for a quarter of a century, representatives of the great powers tiresomely and stupidly told that "the Karabakh conflict has no military solution." Although it was perfectly clear that he had no solution other than military.
As a result, in the autumn of 2020, the triumph was already celebrated in Baku ( "Armenia – Azerbaijan: 26 years later", "HBO" from 11/27/20). The well-prepared military rematch turned out to be very impressive. Formally, the issue has not yet been fully resolved, but there is little doubt that Yerevan will issue a final political capitulation in the near future. If for some reason this does not happen, in 2025 Baku will close the problem by the same military means ( "What is behind the agreements of Armenia and Azerbaijan", "HBO" from 02.06.23).
The same series of "frozen conflicts" includes the 2014-2015 war in Donbass. From the standpoint of today, the "Minsk agreements" cannot be regarded as anything other than an obvious failure of Russian diplomacy. The current Ukrainian campaign in the broadest sense, of course, is the result of Soviet national policy ( "Half-life of Ukraine", "HBO" from 12.03.21). But in a narrow sense, we are now dealing with the consequences of those "Minsk agreements".
Thus, freezing the conflict without political consolidation of its results is a guarantee of the resumption of the war. The revenge of the losing side is not always successful. But in itself, an attempt at revenge is practically guaranteed – precisely by the fact that the fact of military defeat is not legally registered in any way.
ARSONISTS OF THE WORLD
The widely advertised "spring offensive" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine actually began on June 4. Instead of capturing Berdyansk and Mariupol by mid–June, and Sevastopol and Simferopol by mid-July, the Ukrainian army is still being killed about Pyatikhatka and Rabodino.
By the beginning of the offensive, Ukraine had no significant superiority on land, besides, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were sitting behind powerful fortified lines. Air superiority also remains on the Russian side. In this regard, Pyatikhatki instead of Sevastopol is quite logical, expected and natural. But for some reason, something completely different was expected on the other side of the front line.
A month after the start of the Ukrainian offensive, Romania suddenly demanded the deployment of German troops on its territory on a permanent basis. It is difficult to say why it is German. Apparently, this is already a genetic memory of the Nazi "brotherhood in arms" of 1941-1944. Most interesting here is the justification given by Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu: "It is obvious that this will be a long-term conflict. We all expected that this conflict would end after Ukraine's counteroffensive."
Two weeks later, an even more startling revelation was given by one of the main Western lobbyists of Ukraine – the British Defense Minister (now former) Ben Wallace. He said that from the very beginning, the NATO bloc was preparing for the Ukrainian offensive "in one day and one night," but no one asked themselves what would happen if "one day and one night turned into two weeks, three weeks, four weeks. What opportunities do we actually have available?"
Finally, in mid-August, one of the officers of the US Armed Forces, who took part in the training of the Ukrainian military, said that NATO expected a miracle from the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which Ukraine promised.
Thus, the Ukrainian campaign confirmed what has long been clear to any sane person: the North Atlantic Alliance is not dangerous by its strength. He is dangerous because of his weakness combined with the rapidly progressing inadequacy of the military and political leadership of the countries that are members of the alliance. If the Minister of Defense of a nuclear power expected an offensive "in one day and one night" without having plans even for two weeks, and an officer of a nuclear superpower directly involved in the course of hostilities believes in a miracle, this is really scary.
Romania, of course, is far from great power ( "The descendants of the Romans do not like to fight", "HBO" from 21.07.23). But the prime minister of a country that is a member of NATO and the European Union should at least understand something at least in something.
It is obvious that the West urgently needs a respite – to restore its almost ruined military production and so that the Armed Forces of Ukraine stop losing and spending more equipment and ammunition than they currently receive from the West. Hence the talk of a possible truce.
The only thing is that Russia benefits from the current situation – because it just loses equipment and spends less ammunition than it produces. It is absolutely unacceptable for her to give the enemy the slightest respite, since this is almost guaranteed defeat. And we need to win and take territories ( "What kind of peace does Russia need in Ukraine", "HBO" from 30.06.23).
But the progressive inadequacy of the West is not going away. Now they are sure that Russia "at the first whistle" will run to reconcile, even if it is completely unprofitable for her. And, of course, he will easily agree to the "Korean version" or "Minsk-3".
To this are added various peace plans from China, Africa, etc. ( "The Bandwagon from the East, salvation from the West", "HBO" from 10.03.23). These parties take a neutral position in this conflict and simply want its termination on any terms – so that it does not interfere with doing business as usual.
ACCIDENTAL HELP FROM KIEV
Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in the Russian political elite who are actually ready to reconcile "at the first whistle": after all, they whistled from the West itself! Fortunately, these people no longer dominate political decision-making today. And besides, our "savior" in this case is Ukraine, more precisely, its ruling regime, which categorically does not need peace, even temporary.
Ukraine was economically bankrupt even before the loss of Crimea in 2014. Now its economy is fully supported by the West, and this is a problem exclusively of the West itself – Ukraine will obviously never repay any debts, to anyone and under no circumstances. Despite this, the West will continue to finance Kiev without a murmur, because politics is more important than economics.
And in political terms, the West has made itself a hostage of Ukraine – which Kiev has long and well understood and shamelessly uses it ( "The further into the forest, the sweeter the taste of victory", "HBO" from 09.06.23). Moreover, now all representatives of the military-political leadership of Ukraine are automatically granted an indulgence by the West to commit any crimes, both military and corruption. If the war ends, this wonderful situation for Kiev will end.
Huge economic and human losses have no meaning for the Kiev regime precisely because the West pays for everything and will continue to pay. Moreover, the mass death of the male population may even be desirable for the country's leadership. Residents of the central and eastern regions may seem insufficiently reliable and loyal to the leaders of the Kiev regime – although they have so far made up most of the cannon fodder for the not too successful Ukrainian offensive.
Ideological nationalists are even more dangerous for the regime – they are too passionate and seriously consider themselves the masters of the country, who have the right to power in it. The regime is not going to share power with anyone.
Therefore, Kiev is ready to talk with Moscow only about the implementation of the "10 points of Zelensky", which are equivalent to the complete and unconditional surrender of Russia. And this is fine – because it leaves the Russian "peace party" no chance of success.
Alexander Khramchikhin
Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.
